Peter, It was not an error and there were no special runs. Glaube mir Jerry "Peter K." wrote: > I have the T with the mask. I can do 12 exposures of 6x6cm without > mask, and 16 exposures of 6x4.5cm with the mask. > WHen you insert the mask, it pushes a small metal rod of sorts that > move the counter from 12 to 16. I also have a Rolleikin for the T, and > when I use this the only thing I need do is make sure the pressure > plate on the back is set to 36mmx 24mm. > > I do not doubt the claim that somewhere in existence is a custom T > that is capable of 24 exposures, but according to Prochnow himself Ts > NEVER had 220 capability. > So this must have either been an error or it was a special run that > was never sold. > > Peter K=20 > > On 4/22/05, David Seifert <dseifert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jim, > >=20 > > My reference was only to the first model (PR184 and PR184/1). The later > > models (beginning with S/N T2,157,000 - July 1961) are, indeed equipped > > for the Rolleikin 2. According to Prochnow, these cameras are equipped > > to do the 12/16 trick as well and have the option of either 4x4 > > (Superslide) or 4x5.5 masks. The pressure plate would remain in the 6x6 > > position and insertion of the film mask would set the film counter and > > transport to 4cm frame height (and thus 16 frames per roll). > >=20 > > David > >=20 > > Jim Somberg wrote: > >=20 > > >According to my two Rollei T's, the film pressure plate is settable to e= > ither 6X6 cm or 24X36MM, the latter with a Rolleikin, of course. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: David Seifert > > > To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 6:34 PM > > > Subject: [rollei_list] Re: "There is a 220 Rollei T" > > > > > > Ardeshir Mehta wrote: > > > > > > >On Friday, April 22, 2005, at 07:02 PM, David Seifert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Marc, > > > >> > > > >>You were only partially in error. The units in question were equippe= > d > > > >>with a 24 frame counter. The camera still used 120 film but produced > > > >>24 smaller (24x36?) on the film via a masking system. We went throug= > h > > > >>this last year in more detail than anyone cares to recall. > > > >> > > > >>Best Regards, > > > >>David > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >Oh? This is interesting! Are you sure the prints were as small as 24x= > 36 > > > >mm? Could they have been 30x60 mm? > > > > > > > >A. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ardeshir, > > > > > > Just for you, I look this up again. According to Prochnow in Rollei > > > Report 2 page 409 there were 250 units of this type built in June 1961= > . > > > He notes that these were "Direktverkauf, nicht gelistet", direct sale, > > > no price listed. I interpret that to mean that these were a custom > > > order batch. The customer is not mentioned. They used 120 film and > > > produced either 12 6x6 images per roll or 24 24x36 images per roll usi= > ng > > > the special mask kit. Thus, they had a 12/24 frame counter. > > > > > > For the record, the standard model of that run (56,000 units) came wit= > h > > > a 12/16 frame counter equipped to do 12 or 16 exposures per 120 roll. > > > The mask kit produced 16 4.5x5 images. > > > > > > Thus spake Prochnow! > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > >=20 > > --=20 > Peter K > =D3=BF=D5=AC